Yan-Yi Lee
In the literature review, you mentioned the advantages and disadvantages of CS, but here your research question 3 only touches upon teachers’ perceptions on its benefits, leaving out the disadvantages. Would it be a good idea to also inquire about teachers’ perceptions on the disadvantages of CS?
Yan-Yi Lee
Here, the mention of student teachers being ‘unconfident’ about whether it is ‘theoretically appropriate’ to use CS is a crucial point and deserves more elaboration. What are some concrete episodes whereby students teachers experienced difficulties with CS choices? What exactly are their concerns? I believe it might be good to extract data that echo with this lack of confidence so that you could offer more concrete pedagogical suggestions towards the end of the paper.
Yan-Yi Lee
This mention of urban and rural schools is very intriguing, as I can imagine that something like CS could differ quite much between the urban and rural contexts. What is the rationale for including these two types of schools? Not sure if this comment is helpful, but would it be a good idea to also briefly touch upon the investigation of CS in rural schools as well?
Yan-Yi Lee
It might be helpful to illustrate more in this paragraph. Since this research is based in Vietnam, as a reader I am very curious to know in more detail what existing studies reveal about CS in this context and the interplay between these past studies and yours
Yan-Yi Lee
This paragraph is very concise. However, I thought it might be helpful to denote why you chose to investigate the case of both student teachers and experienced teachers. Are you going to compare them, and what is the rationale for doing so?
Olivia Marsh
[Indeed, Rwandan government’s excuse for suspending to teach history and then teaching one national narrative is its fear of retriggering the conflict. As a result, it chose to evade the possibility of re-igniting ethnic distinctions at the expense of addressing the resulting structural violence. Although some Rwandans view the government approach to the issue as manipulative, some previous research on intergroup contact highlights how intergroup encounters where different identities and perspectives of the conflict are discussed enhance negative attributions and stereotyping among participants (Moaz, 2000a and 2000b).]
Is this whole section from the Moaz source? The first two sentences seem separate from the Moaz reference. Can it be clarified?
Olivia Marsh
Suitable number of relevant and recent sources that outline current critical thinking on the subject.
Olivia Marsh
Signposting of argument makes the article coherent and cohesive
Olivia Marsh
Clear outline on need for research, demonstrates understanding of the existing academic field and defines the focus of the research.
Source: http://corerj.soc.srcf.net/?page_id=7
Comments by Commenter
Perhaps some contextual information about the state of being a refugee in Malaysia as well as the education opportunities and barriers in this context e.g. existing literature/reports would be helpful to properly situate the learner identities which are subsequently discussed.
This reminds me of the work by Boaventura de Sousa Santos on Epistemologies of the South. He refers to concepts of cognitive justice, sociology of absences, the abyssal line and non-extractivist methodologies which are in the realm of what you covered here. Perhaps his recent book ‘The End of the Cognitive Empire: The Coming of Age of Epistemologies of the South’ (2018) might be useful for you.
I don’t see the need to mention that in the abstract, or perhaps in less detail, for instance removing the title of the thesis.
Not sure if I agree that multimodality is a type of communication. Multimodality is the phenomenon that communication is almost always multimodal, and it involves “modes”, not medium, which would then refer to multimediality.
[, the class was large with approximately 130 learners. ]: this information is repeated.
Does it mean that there were limitations to a reader-centred approach? Is this why you mention it? Can it be more explicit?
Again repetition of the number. Is it necessary?
Consider revising the subtitle? Its construction does not seem very clear.
Consider revising the subtitle? Its construction does not seem very clear.
Only physical traits? Is it possible to specify? When they are transformed in pictures, it seems to be a focus on their appearance. How was their personality considered?
[settings both in urban and rural settings]
Setting repeated 2 times in the same sentence. Perhaps consider another word?
Benefit and challenges of what? Expand the subtitle? Perhaps “of using multimodal methods in the teaching of literature”?
Even with these comments from the readers, wouldn’t the materials still fulfill their purpose as a tool to trigger students engagement with and analysis of the novel?
[drama, group discussions and role play]
Aren’t drama and role paly also multimodal strategies? I think they would qualify as such.
This does not show much confidence. From what was described above, although there we limitations and difficulties, the approaches seem extremely successful. Can you link with what was said earlier and conclude with a mode assertive position on the value of such teaching techniques and tools?
Extra line space
Was the aim to enhance the data or to be a good teaching technique that fostered student-centered learning?
Why are only head teachers being interviewed online? Is it because they are the ones responsible for behaviour management in their schools?
Are these girls isolated in a geographic sense as well? I understand that they are being taught by Americans but are all the staff members of the orphanage American? Also, are there limited interactions with the “real worl” beyond the orphanage?
This methodology appears quite comprehensive in terms of the data it will make available and representativeness of different stakeholders.
If the education being received is not considerate of local context, would talking about decolonisation theories (especially curriculum) be useful at some point?
Tiny point, but might as well number your research questions, so it’s easier to refer back to them later
Tiny point, but coul number rqs so easier to refer back to them later
Perhaps cite Schultz alongside Becker
Consider adding a brief limitations section at this point, outlining things you would ideally be able to do but can’t because of the data. Don’t be too apologetic though, and acknowledge where/how you’ve compensated for challenges. This will help show the reader your ability to delimit what you can and can’t do in the given study.
This systematic approach is very helpful in understanding how you conducted your search, and also makes the search more objective. Looks good!
The title clearly reflects what the paper covers, but is not in APA style in terms of capital and lowercase letters
I am not sure why you only included papers maximum 15 years old. Is there a reason for that? For the sake of completeness, it seems relevant to include older papers as well.
Can you state explicitly why you take this theory as your starting point?
It seems contradictory that you limit your systematic search to 15 years yet include older literature here
I am not sure I find it helpful that you discuss all authors one after another, I think a bit more integration could be helpful, with key themes as paragraphs
Ok, this is clear
This short summary is helpful
The simple explanation here is good, as well as the explanation about the intervention. I would make the focus less on the Leite & Kuiper study, as this takes the spotlight off your suggestion
Perhaps include the possibility of file-drawer research that is unpublished. It could be that there is research on this, but it simply has not been published
References are not APA. Remove “Vol”, remove capitals from title where necessary, include DOI, triple check in general
Perhaps include that you are doing a review
Ok this paragraph is very clear in stating your motivation for writing this article. The numbering is helpful
Sentence two, perhaps “speaker” should be “speakers”?
I fail to understand the last sentence, please clarify
This short summary of Blum & Johnsons findings is helpful
These paragraphs are clear and well-written. Reasoning is easy to follow
Ok, this is a respectful way of criticising research and pointing out discrepancies in previous literature, well done
Argument is clear. Signposting and summarising final sentence are helpful
I would make it clearer what your own stance is on this, rather than only mentioning van Dijk. I think your piece would benefit from more personal critical engagement rather than only reflecting two opposing sides from the literature
This paragraph could benefit from some future directions and a summary that is slightly more elaborate (e.g., rather than writing things like “the link between X and Y”, and “the solutions for Z “write out what the actual link or solution is). Otherwise clear conclusion.
Clear, strong conceptualization of the problem. A small question on why the phrase ‘Literary Concerns’ in the title of this sub-section?
This is a really interesting, open-ended question to explore.
Not quite sure I understand this sub-question – ‘factor’ in terms of…? I also wonder if perhaps the term ‘factor’ conjures up quantitative connotations and is better substituted with another term that suits the qualitative paradigm of the researcher?
A very good justification for this study! Regarding the penultimate sentence, is this a study of “glocalization as it affects East African young women”, or is it a study of how young women experience glocalization? (My impression was that it was more the latter). A subtle difference, but a difference which I feel demonstrates differing emphases. Also, some critics might say that ‘glocalization’ doesn’t affect anyone; it is only an analytic term. Rather, transnational, national and subnational agents/players are those that affect young women, not ‘glocalization’ per se. On the whole, a really readable and strong research note; I enjoyed reading it.
I think there is a small typo at the start of the final sentence – “My aim is to understand of how to promote social justice,….”
The “field of transitional justice” isn’t human being, and it thus cannot “(attempt) to theorise and carry out different conceptions of justice…” Sounds like an anthropomorphising of an un-human thing. Instead consider: “Scholars in the field of transitional justice…” / “Transitional justice scholars”. Also consider replacing “carry out” with “outline” different conceptions. It’s a bit unclear to me what “carrying out” a conception looks like.
“oversight” means a mistake made in failing to recognise something. Is this the correct word used here? It’s not clear to me how research can “act as a valuable vehicle for the oversight of…power”. Do you mean for the ‘overseeing of power’? Overseeing and oversight mean two different things
Perhaps use a clearer term than “core addition”? Can something be both “core” and an “addition”?
Perhaps use a clearer term than “core addition”. Can something be both “core” and an “addition”? Seems like a contradiction in terms?
Seems like a typo here – I believe it should be “canon” rather than “cannon”. It would be good to go through the document and change the word “cannon” to “canon”
Please ignore if I’m making a mistake, but I was wondering why there is a ‘242’ here – is the reference correct? Would be great to double-check.
Thank you for a helpful overview of the different types of justice!
There should be a comma after 1990s
Overall, a helpful and well-written article that illustrates a beneficial connection between transitional justice and history teaching. The abstract can be made a little less complex and shortened, and emphasise more the implications for history educators (as the CORERJ readership will likely be most interested in that).
Grammatical error: “Thus, learners’ reading comprehension in the multimedia learning environment IS LARGELY DEPENDED on…” –> “largely depends on” (active voice should be used instead of passive voice).
I would recommend this paragraph being split into two paragraphs for clarity (the second paragraph can start with “However, working memory has limited capacity…”.
This section addresses research gaps and I suggest relabelling it (this is not really a “literature review” section, is it?).
While the author did a very good job in justifying the significance of this study here, more details on the methodology from studies by Son (2003) and Segers and Hulstijn-Hendrikse (2008) would be required for the reader to see the gaps the author(s) is/are trying to point out (e.g. what measurements were employed in those studies? Were there only immediate post-tests?). Also, the author(s) need(s) to clarify “two levels of reading comprehension”.
Is there something wrong with the format here? The second question starts with “input modality” without a question word? Is “does” missing at the beginning of this sentence?
Very clear and well presented aims for the research questions!
A great research design clearly presented in a table!
Well argued!
Very well argued, again!
Very well-planned!
This is a very well designed research project that can have significant and impactful contributions!
Please correct the repeated mistake “is largely depended on” as pointed out previously.
Overall, this project has an excellent research design which is clearly presented and well argued in this paper.
If this section is supposed to be the abstract of the paper, I would recommend shortening it to make it more concise. In its present form, this section contains a lot of details that can and should be presented in the next sections.
After reading the whole paper, I’m afraid I still don’t understand the title “Does ‘WOW’ translate to an ‘A’?”. Did I miss something? Could you please explain how it is relevant to the whole paper? Thanks.
The author may wish to explain in more detail the contexts of these studies – to what extent are they helpful in understanding the Singaporean setting (not least when they were published 10-20 years ago and from outside Singapore/Asia)?
The author may also wish to discuss here the emerging concept of ‘World Englishes’
Thank you very much for your comment and suggestions. The first phase of this study (focus groups) highlighted the differences in ATM between 11 year old and 15 year old students (please see paragraph 18 & 62). However, the quantitative data did not show any significant difference between the two cohorts. This can be due to different reasons which were not discussed in this paper due to limited word space.
🙂
Thanks!
Thank you !
Thank you for your comment and drawing my attention towards this inconsistency.
Thank you for pointing it out. I will add a sentence in the introduction section to explain it, as you have suggested.
Thanks, I understand your point but I thought it would become confusing for the reader if the colour schemes were not consistent, therefore I drew it the way it is.
In this study independent samples were used for t-tests and tests for normality were also conducted to reduce the risk of type 1 error. Details of the quantitative data are going to be discussed in another paper.
Thank you for taking the time to read my work and for your valuable comments. I shall take what you have said on board in editing this paper, and some of your suggestions are already in my thesis. You are right that this research is an inductive piece, an emic approach. The study is also based on an interpretive qualitative research epistemology, which includes a critical paradigm, becauuse of the issues of power and inequalities that emerge from the findings. Thanks once again, Hardeek.
A classic. Just wanted to add that this piece is in “Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture”, edited by Nelson and Grossberg.
I think this reference needs a place (i.e., New York) for Teachers College Press.
This reference may also needs a place (i.e., Edinburgh, I think) for Scottish Travellers Consortium.
This is great information. I think the first sentence could be simplified – perhaps you could start the paragraph with a noun (i.e., Gypsy/Traveller girls) to be direct, and then you may specify each “their” point. This may also unpack the key points you make.
This is fascinating, and well written in one paragraph.
These details are very useful. Quick note: in the third sentence, I wonder if there should be a semicolon or a period after “The term is capitalised”.
Great justification. Since you’re leaning towards qualitative, I think you could also point to the idea of offering “thick descriptions” and deep understandings – for those interested in learning more about contemporary Gypsy/Traveller communities.
Useful. I wonder if you may be able to expand on that penultimate sentence of “until I gathered enough interviews”: how did you decide? Was it because of some sort of data saturation? Was it because you had limited time/resource? Or something else?
Good overview. I wonder if you may also touch on informed consent for participants. Also, it may be useful to note if you reflected on ethical guidelines set up in Scotland (i.e., if written) and/or ethical frameworks set up by educational committees.
Wow, this gets into some rich data.
I think in the introduction you said you’re still deciding on a conceptual framework – that’s good. Once that’s set up, I believe it would be useful for the reader to get an explicit sense of the analysis method(s). For instance, as of now, it looks like some type of inductive approach in which you’re coding and categorising the data to come up with themes/fragments. You may describe this further.
It looks like there’s a typo in the sixth sentence after “and that”; the comma is floating.
Great way to connect the findings. Just a quick point on the non-capitalised typo with “bell hooks (1981)”. Also, check out the reference, I think the name also needs to be capitalised there.
Apologies! Please forget that last comment – I lacked knowledge that Ms. hooks writes her name like that.
This is a very well written and important piece of work. As I read this, I made notes on the analysis and ethical considerations for the study. I also wrote small points on typos. A great paper.
This is a concise and well-written paper, which analyses the issue of basic education and its first principles. You also draw on key references, which is useful for readers who’d like to review arguments carefully. If you have the time, I’d also recommend texts from Professors David Labaree, Richard Murnane, and Fernando Reimers, who give thoughtful takes on educational development from a historical, economic, and global perspective, respectively.
This is a helpful reminder for readers. Also, politics influence a society’s educational policies. If interested, Robert Cowen makes a strong argument in citing the role of politics on policies and comparative education. Reference: Cowen, R. (2014). Ways of knowing, outcomes and ‘comparative education’: be careful what you pray for. Comparative Education, 50(3), 282-301.
This is a good description. I also wonder about the word ‘relevance’, as you write in the topic sentence of the next paragraph. Is there a way to describe the term ‘relevance’ here, initially, so that the reader is prepared when they move onto the next paragraph?
To avoid assumptions for readers, it may be simpler to write out what “this” refers to.
This might be a typo; if so, Merriam, 2009 should be second and Tatto, 2012 should be third. Also, please double-check the multi-referenced citations for the rest of this paper.
This is useful. Do you also have statistics on the initial search results and the final sample of documents for literature review? Also, what was the specific time frame – it looks like the start date was post-1990; what was the end date?
Small typo: Woessman.
Readers may benefit if you cite the reference(s) about the published post-2015 goals.
This might be a typo; if so, is this the reference citation?
This looks like a typo; the page numbers should be added.
This looks like a typo: should there be more words at the end of this reference citation, and a period?
Humour is often considered key in developing relationships (Dean & Major, 2008; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006).
It has been suggested that pupils, as well as teachers, often do not respect supply teachers as proper teachers (Cornwall, 2005).
Because in this multiple case study, various types of data has been collected, triangulation of data could also be explained associated with mixed-method as already mentioned in the study.
A very well written paper. Each part, including the abstract, literature review, results and discussion, is written in detail on the attitudes of students on Mathematics.
You should remove this paragraph as in the original research articles IMRD (Introduction-Methodology-Results and Discussion) is a well-established convention, thus, readers are already familiar with. Maybe because the paper is an outcome of an MA thesis, the author put this paragraph.
As for the first letter in each sub-title, there are some inconsistencies. For example, as for “1.2 Factors influencing ATM”, the second word “influence” started with lower case “i”. However, when we move on like “1.2.2 Gender and Age”, the first letter of each word has been capitalised. Consistency is needed.
Very informative abstract and the theoretical framework was accompanied by a concise Figure. Please refer to Figure in the text (for example, under subsection 1.1. in the first paragraph).
Could you please justify why you considered “five factors”?
The review is written to fill the gap and expressed clearly in the abstract: “This review seeks to bridge this troubling gap between educational research and cognitive psychology…”
The highlight about “collaboration between dual-process theorists and mathematics education researchers ” is a good deduction for educational research.
You may remove the first sentence to make the paper more concise and to focus on the following sentence “My analysis has revealed…”.
A very good guidance for the audience who are interested in “correlations”.
Because referencing style in CORERJ is APA, the whole text should be checked in line with the APA referencing style to prevent the inconsistencies. Eg., while providing reference in parenthesis, sometimes “&” has been used but sometimes “and” has been used while the publication is co-authored.
Thank you Charleen for your comment. I meant to note that there is limited empirical work in the literature related to contemporary missionary education studies in East Africa. Rephrasing will help clarify. thank you.
Would consider taking out the word “interesting”
Would consider italicizing large block quotes to differentiate the text
What wider choices and actions?
Mechanical comment, in the first sentence would either choose “But” or “Despite”, otherwise it is redundant.
But couldn’t global citizenship education (GCE) proponents say that development education is included in GCE? Unclear about the distinguishing factors between GCE and DE (e.g. examples you listed can still be placed under the term GCE). If anything GCE seems like the broader term to me? Would be great if this could be fleshed out more.
Interestingly, this also applies to Spivak herself and her own positionality (esp associated with elite institutions/universities that were complicit) is not something I have found that she addresses
I found the abstract clear and engaging. Would it be a good idea to state at this point that the study was conducted in England?
How long did the interviews typically last? Did you interview the participants at a similar point in the training year?
Maybe author could further develop an explanation for the link between the content/structure/motivation of the two training programmes and the findings? e.g. Is there a reason why TF participants may think in X way compared to PGCE participants?
Are there other variables that could explain also these differences? Subject? School phase? Prior work experience?
As suggested above, I think the discussion needs to be more persuasive in linking the course content or purpose to the participants’ beliefs.
Interesting proposals for future research
Really interesting and informative article. Gave me a lot to think about – thanks 🙂
Really interesting and relevant abstract – I’ve come across a lot of confusion about how/if literacy skills can be incorporated into maths lessons
[ Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 Evidence would suggest that including literacy in other subjects should improve if met with effective feedback]
Leave a comment on paragraph 190Perhaps author(s) could rephrase this – is the suggestion that teachers should get feedback on the way in which they include literacy in their subjects?
Informative review. Material was clearly explained and synthesised.
I think it would be helpful for the reader if you explained earlier on and more explicitly why you have chosen students of ages 11 and 15 years old. From this paragraph I understand that it is because these students are at the beginning of their respective Key Stages, but it would be good to have this information earlier on as I was wondering why.
This is really interesting but I would change the colours so that low attainment is red and high attainment is green. I know this is different to the other two factors (ESL and FSM) colour scheme, but I think it may be more intuitive to read as we tend to think of green as the most desirable outcomes (ie high attainment, low FSM, low ESL).
Missing dot.
Good justification for focusing on teaching DCE, well-written.
I am not so sure about the wording of the question, particularly the ‘to what extent’ bit, which suggests that you are going to measure something, a quantitative study. Based on the intro, this seems more of an exploratory study and so more suitable for questions like ‘What are the beliefs…’ ‘How do the beliefs… of the two groups align/differ?’
Missing dot and Dewey’s name. Maybe ‘according to Dewey (1916.2994, p.83), such…. ” could be used?
Good job summarising the literature on trainee teachers’ beliefs in this section
Could you give more details about the participants? (e.g., gender, age range, working experience/background, no of years of active career?)
Refer to the latest BERA 2018 guidance
If already published, could you reference? It may be useful for the audience who want to follow up and read more about the larger case study.
regarding my earlier comment about participant’s info, you’ve got it all covered! 🙂
A reference to an interview as a method would make the ‘ideal method’ statement more justified.
Including the statements is very useful, thank you!
Were participants made aware about audio-recording, did they agree? What about confidentiality? I personally would appreciate a couple more comments about specific measures on ethics 😉
These references are crucial as they show that your interview method is rooted in previous studies.
Could you make a couple of statements about the process? Did you use SPSS, or any other software? Did you code manually – highlighting the printed transcripts? What analysis did you follow – thematic, IPA, etc? What about reliability? Did you verify your findings in any way?
I am not sure I follow here – could the participants see the cards they were selecting or were the cards turned upside down? How/why would they be satisfied with their selection?
Is this the real participant’s name?
It may be useful to put the findings in a table – themes and how they overlap between the groups.
Could you elaborate or give an example how participants’ beliefs may translate into their practice?
very true
Nice ending, good piece of work, thank you!
It would be good to see more references about research methods used (interview, analysis) and please include BERA 2018. Thanks.
The opening example and introduction to the article make the topic relevant to almost any audience. I feel intrigued to read more.
The way the author depicts complexity and context aptly highlights the importance of empathy in education. The author states article’s objectives clearly.
When defining empathy, I would welcome a more distinct reference to psychology (author only refers to psychological critique). Because of cognitive and emotional aspects used in the definition, maybe a more distinct note that psychological definition of empathy is used, and debated from sociological perspectives.
A biological ‘defence’ is used in British spelling.
My preference would be avoiding the use of ‘i’ throughout the article as for me, it evokes an ’essay’ style as opposed to academic article. However, this is purely the author’s choice of own writing style.
Good justification paragraph.
A very subjective comment about the linking style – the use of ‘I now discus’ or ‘I now show’ in previous para or ‘I later explore’ in the previous previous one, make the reading somewhat less flowing to me. Not sure if I am expressing myself clearly but it sort of takes my attention away from the content of the article. Maybe it feels somewhat mechanical?
This is an example of a very smooth link to the next paragraph 🙂
Could you briefly summarise the reasons you’ve discussed in this section?
Should this be number 2?
Could you reference?
I am not sure of the use of exclamation marks in an academic article, particularly if a reference is used, suggesting Andreotti has used exclamation mark as well.
Could you make a reference?
Is this specific information already published? Could you reference?
no dot before the reference
Perhaps I do not fully understand the purpose of this literature review. If it is to be written in an essay style, statements about personal justifications might be ok. Though, if this piece is strictly academic, I would suggest minimising the amount of personal judgments.
Interesting concept, appears to derive from your psychological definition of empathy, particularly cognition.
Interesting topic discussed in a refreshing way! Thank you for introducing me to a more sociological perspectives on empathy.
2x Adnreotti, 2011, could you distinguish by letters?
Connell before Cooper
I think that the abstract could be shortened a bit. It does not to be so detailed.
The rationale for the study is really clear and strong. The literature review is thorough and demonstrates and appropriate coverage of the subject.
As the methodology used in this study is a case study of a school, maybe more details about the school and how it was chosen or why it is appropriate could be provided.
The choice and the diversity of the participants is really useful as it enables the researcher to examine the issue from all aspects. Very nice idea.
Very good job acknowledging the limitations and restrictions of the study.
In the abstract it is stated that the methodology adopted was a case study, However, there is no mention at case study research and why it was chosen at the method section. I think more information about the reasons why case study is appropriate for this study could be included. Overall, it is a very well structured and coherent paper on a controversial topic. I read it with great interest.
This section is very well written yet to me it seems to fit more under the title Introduction..
This is a very good summary of the work but maybe all together the Abstract would be better understood if it were a bit shorter.
very well presented !
very clear flow of ideas !
[This research study explored mentoring for leadership development from the perspectives of middle managers. It seeks to gather insights to explore mentoring as an avenue in development of leadership competencies defined in the Leader Growth Model (LGM) – A toolkit for leadership development for leaders. The LGM is a guide designed for middle managers in Singapore schools to support personal growth plans in leadership development (LGM, 2014).]
very well put
brief and to the point but puts the whole work perfectly into perspective
maybe if you could add a line to outline the structure of your work this would help the reader follow the flow of your literature review
From a structural point of view it seems a bit confusing that you introduce two definitions before the literature review and after outlining the target of your work.
It is not very clear to the reader why you chose to define these specific constructs in depth
Maybe if you could add a linking statement before and after the definition statements this would make the flow better
[Furthermore, the leadership role of middle managers has become more complex with more responsibilities at school instead of departmental leve]
very good point !
[six dimensions for leaders in Singapore schools and they are (1) Ethical leader, (2) Educational leader, (3) Visionary leader, (4) Culture builder, (5) Change leader and (6) Network leader (LGM, 2014)]
I think you mentioned those before earlier so maybe just refer to the above mentioned
The literature review part that covers middle managers is very interesting to read, yet it addresses so many different dimensions and it is not very clear how these dimensions relate to the main target of the study.
Maybe if at the beginning of the literature review you could just add a line or two to outline all that is going to be discussed in this section and maybe as you explain the middle manager part you could also mention why these particular details are relevant to this study.
Overall it is very interesting to read !
[Besides mentoring, coaching ]
it is not very clear which literature definition of mentoring and coaching you are refering to and how you differentiate between the two terms
[The researcher in this study adopted the stance to regard coaching as part of mentoring in leadership development of middle managers.]
This is a very important statement. It would be useful to elaborate a little bit more on it and maybe add references of other researchers that adopted the same stance or a stance that aligns with it. Also it would be interesting to give a causation to the stance you choose to adopt
[This paper uncovered the perception of middle managers on desired changes in mentoring, in particular, the findings indicated the need to have mentoring beyond the school.]
very good closing statement.
Would be nice to link it to the statement before the literature review which also was briefing the reader about the target of this work and to use similar terminology so that the reader can relate this statement to the latter
very clear and to the point !
Well done !
[DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006) described a semi-structured interview as “generally organized around a set of predetermined open-ended questions, with other questions emerging from the dialogue between interviewer and interviewee” (p. 315). Hence, there were open-ended questions used in the interview guide for the interview sessions. ]
Here it would be important to mention that this is the same definition you choose to take on for your methodology as well
This paragraph seems to focus on the data analysis rather than the methodology for data collection
This paragraph is now talking about the data collection yet placing it after the data analysis paragraph might seem a bit misleading.
Also it is not very clear if the question in the paragraph is one of the interview question or whether it is the research question and why this question in particular was chosen and how it relates to the overall target of the work
Maybe it would be useful not to start the paragraph directly with a Table but to add a sentence or two leading to the Table so that the reader knows what to expect in the Table and what the Table is about
I like the way how you interrelate the results in the Table. Well done !
It’s very good that you elaborate on the contents of the Table and add supporting extracts. This does give credibility to your findings.
Yet maybe you should think of adding more complexity to the way you report your findings. For instance maybe group certain patterns together or make connections between different findings.
[This research is a case study approach]
maybe you could have elaborated further on the case study approach in the methodology section
[ A quantitative study can further research in this area by translating the findings in this research into survey questions on desired changes in mentoring for middle managers]
good point
[This study revealed middle managers’ desire in learning to lead through mentoring beyond their school context. The participants indicated they need to find the right mentor who can help them to grow and they wanted to have the autonomy in deciding who will be their mentors beyond the school, especially for a specific area of interest or strength]
very good summary of main findings
I think the Abstract is very well written and very easy to follow. The only thing that confused me a little bit is it doesn’t much define the context of the study. You refer to A-level students but you do not mention which context of instruction (Europe, Asia …etc) Especially with literacy there is a cultural element that is attached that is usually specific to the context. Maybe if you could just add A level students in British school for instrance
This argument is very well developed and very well supported too! Well done !
[The present work is dedicated addressing this issue.]
maybe it would be helpful here to add the research question
[However, since such analyses are scarce and they do not necessarily reveal what effective mathematical communication is, we shall also consult writing guides from research mathematicians on what makes good written mathematics. ]
very good point !
[Hence, we it would]
maybe just..hence, it….
I suggest omitting the word ‘we’
[For the purposes of the following discussing we shall consider mathematics written in English.]
maybe this needs to come already in the Abstract
[mathematical texts the author is not trying to rely personal accounts but rather, establish absolute truths using deductive logic.]
maybe you can attach that to an ontological/ philosophical orientation that might also be underpinning your work
I think this was a very good and comprehensive review of literature. Well done!
very well presented and structured literature review
Yin’s framework is very well explained however, it is a bit unclear what the underpinning methodology is (grounded theory, action research, case study …?)
[that students]
how many students ?
which age range ?
[The benefit of analysing existing data is that the writing they produced for this homework is that this writing would have more likely been done in a natural setting.]
good point !
[A sample of the students’ texts is given in Appendix B.]
maybe you could state… a sample of student’s texts to a certain prompt … and then refer to the next section where you elaborate further on the prompt
Maybe you should have started with this section to give a broader idea about the general sample and then slowly move into the more specific where you start talking about the task and the students’ responses to it
The rubric is very well designed and clear to follow. Well done !
[The ‘X’ grade is included in the system because in some cases it is important to distinguish absence from a misconception]
good point !
maybe if possible some elaborations with supporting examples would be helpful !
you describe the lit review very well which leads up to the creation of the rubric and how you want to use this rubric in analysing your data. But then the actual results of the analysis seem a bit too briefly addressed.
It would be interesting for a future study to compare these same students’ mathematical writings to their regular English writings
Overall I think it is a very interesting paper, very well written and well structured and engaging to read. Well done !
I know ATM is in the title, but normally one would expect this acronym to be spelled out when first introduced in the text
Nice layout of paper
I’d try to be consistent with use of quotation marks e.g., single or double quotes (above, single quotation marks are used, so would use this for ‘affect’ here)
I don’t think you need to spell out ATM here if you already do above
This is good to see the researcher has recgonised and thought about how to address the limitations of focus group interviews
‘connotations’ in second to last sentence I think should be plural
Nice illustration (albeit an unfortunate experience for the pupil!)
Was there any methods employed to reduce the risk of Type I error using t-tests for multiple comparisons?
Great insight into girls’ attitudes and experiences of maths
It would be nice for the author to engage a bit more with the literature for reasons why he/she believes attitudes were not significantly different between age groups. In the literature on student engagement, general findings point to a decrease in school engagement over the school years. How might these findings speak to that literature?
I can’t find at the moment the specific reference I had in mind, but some sources in this area on student engagement that might be helpful are:
Christenson, S. L. A., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. London, UK: Springer. Retrieved from https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9781461420187
96
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
JA
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109
96
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
JA
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
96
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
JA
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2008). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
Skinner, E. A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.
96
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
JA
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2009). Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. In K. R. Wentzel, A. Wigfield, & D. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 223–245). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.psy/files/35_Wentzel_C011-Skinner.pdf
What about implications of the study? E.g., how might knowledge about ATM support teachers? In cases of low self-concept, possibly introducing pupils to the idea of a growth mindset (e.g., see Dweck 2008, 2012) might help reduce negative attitudes?
96
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
96
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
JA
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Nice overview the review
It’s helpful for acronyms, such as STEM to be spelled out to readers not familiar with the terminology.
Agree. I also think people recognise the importance of collaboration. It’s the practical issue of how to do this. It is probably beyond the scope of your paper, but I think beginning to consider strategies to do this (e.g., setting up a cross-discipline journals, conferences, organisations are some possibilities).
This is a nice ending, showing critical thinking of the literature and consideration of ways to move this research area forward.
I agree with Megan, ATM should be spelled out in the abstract and the introduction, and then the acronym can be used in the rest of the paper.
Good abstract, perhaps instead of saying grades 10th and 12th (since that might mean different in different contexts) you could mention the age group of the students, or perhaps the year group considering most readers would understand the UK system.
Good justification for the work that you have done in this paper.
This is useful, if you could add perhaps a sentence or two about ‘how’ you adapted the two tables, then it would be further useful for the reader.
This is great, especially since it will help you further justify the lack of collaboration with other disciplines like mathematics education, where there might be more varied methodological approaches.
Good analysis. There is no need to refer Crowley twice. Since you have mentioned that you are using that reference, the rest of the work could be discussed based on that.
This is a very good analysis.
Perhaps you could add a sentence about how this one-to-one correspondence in processes might be more complex, considering conceptual knowledge is often also seen as a more reflective aspect of mathematics learning, as compared to procedural knowledge (proc knowledge, some argue can be obtained by massed practice of routine mathematical problems without engaging with the underlying mathematical structures). You could perhaps suggest further research in what these mathematics educational categories could mean in terms of cognitive processes, since your paper suggests a deeper and a more sophisticated dialogue between the two disciplines.
This is also very helpful for the reader to get more evidence of the kind of collaborations that do exist.
This is important, since it is important to justify why these papers were chosen. If you could just add something about what kind of literature you were looking at while choosing the papers for the review would be helpful, since it will further give the reader some ideas about how you went about choosing these.
Once again, it might be useful to know which literature you were looking at.
This is really helpful since how I see this paper is like an invitation for the two disciplines to collaborate, and it is crucial for you to say that this is an attempt and there is need for more critical engagement of the two fields.
I agree with Megan, this is a nice ending.
Test comment
It is great that you are explicitly discussing the aim of the article at this stage.
I personally like the abstract, as it has a kind of personal and more narrative approach. However, I found a bit repetitive the use of “WE”.
I also consider that the word “Believe”… We believe, should be replaced by we argue, consider, etc…
When you mention “in such a way”, it sounds to me a bit repetitive, I would take this out. I also believe that this first introductory paragraph is clear and includes most of the information I need to understand the rational for writing this paper.
I feel the style of writing is going to take a really reflective, experiential and probable narrative approach. I would emphasize that fact in here. instead of mentioning “This article is based on our original reflective paper, but in addition the four-month gap has allowed us to add another layer of reflection and further contemplate on the implications of the workshop.” I would say this article is based and adopts a reflective approach which complements the layer of reflections triggered in the workshop.
This paragraph confused me a bit.. is this the context? the title is not helping me to understand the main idea of it.
This is clear and concise. it provides information about Arts-based methodologies ( that I wasn’t aware of) in a short and straightforward way.
I really liked this paragraph as it provides clear examples of what you are aiming in this paper. You can think about including some of this in the abstract.
I liked this account which relates to the research made by practitioners. However, I consider that you need to include some comments regarding the implications of practitioner research in the research process itself. Give some examples, for example, teacher doing action research,etc.. just to give a better understanding of the concept.
“These modes of dissemination may be ” instead of repeating this sentence… you can say ” for instance….
clear! However, the brackets make me stop the reading. Maybe it is just me!
I would say…. Yanyue brought a bag of everyday and curious objects to the workshop which included a beach shell, necklace…
I would include the detail of the 15 participants in the abstract.
a bit descriptive section here, which is fine! However, I would try to input a bit of reflective writing in here, or a more critical reflective perspective. mainly explain WHY the participants found it challenging to identify a particular way of including everybody’s research? Was it because the instruction was not clear? was it because the activity itself required more time ? was it because the topics were so diverse that you didn’t forecast that to happen?…. you also mentioned this was solved… HOW? you gave more time, you acted as facilitators, there was a discussion ?
Good! you are giving reasons in this paragraph.
this tile is a bit confusing to me. are this concluding reflections after the workshop? was this like a section in the workshop? if so just take the title out, as it doesn’t add much as a new section.
Donald Schön is a He. I think that the point you are making in here is that you reflected in and on action to write the following reflections. In that case, I would mention that reflection is an ongoing process and as such it has been affected and changed over the time. You can also include that learning is a continuous an as such this paper adopts that premise.
I really liked your reflections! as a general comment, I would try to make a better link with reflection as a process of writing. It is really interesting to read something that describes an experience, and mix academic writing and personal experiences. I believe we need a bit more of this in academia. Thanks!
Thank you very much for your submission to CORERJ. Below are some suggestions for your consideration.
Abstract: The focus of the paper “communicating educational research” as a reflection is an interesting contribution to the relevant literature. 1- In the abstract rather than providing the structure of the paper, (such as in line 3 We start with an overview or in line 4, We then) please briefly describe the study with key aspects between 250 to 300 words.
Introduction: Paragraph 16-Could you explain the reason the underlying reason and you motivation why the workshop had 3 parts.
How did you deal with the a number of participants’ challenges for that you wrote “Once this has been sorted”.
In paragraph 78, after your final sentence starting with “We belive…” you may suggest future research on the same topic for the sustainability.
Your sentence on needs for audience and participant is a significant dimension, thus, a few sentences can be added from the relevant literature with references how collaboration among stakeholder to define needs can increase active participation and also motivation.
The number of the participants in the workshop should be included after the first sentence as (n=15).
The photos indeed helped the workshop context to visualise.
You should provide references on why “we often need to avoid complex language” and “Alternetive forms of publication and dissemination often require collaboration”.
“Learning by doing” is one of the highlights in education. You may give a reference for interested reader to learn about the topic.
You may provide the definition for “challenging behaviour” with a reference.
A very well structured and informative abstract.
Keywords for the abstract should be added.
After reviewing the literature, you may Express the contribution of your study to the available literature and if any niche is filled.
You should explain why purposive sampling strategy was used given that selection of the study informants is one of the significant issues for the credibility of the research.
You should write about the limitation of the study, such as limited number of participants and only using survey data, for tentative conclusions.
Could you please write a few current reference from the relevant literature on the use of first language (L1) following the expressions “…over the few decades)” so that the audience may consult the literature if they need.
[to date little has undressed the role of the L1 from a theoretical perspective for informing practitioners of theory-supported teaching practices. ]
The gap on the role of L1 has been stated clearly.
The aim of the research is clearly stated. Instead of using the word “several” what about providing “the exact number of key contructs” handled in this study?
The abstract is rich and to the point.
The first paragraph of the Introduction section is very good because showing the counter argument associated with the use of L1 during teaching and the last sentence explicitly present the aim of this study with the related references: “(e.g. Lantolf, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 2000).”
Good point. I meant students receiving feedback on tasks that include literacy components.
Clear outline on need for research, demonstrates understanding of the existing academic field and defines the focus of the research.
Signposting of argument makes the article coherent and cohesive
Suitable number of relevant and recent sources that outline current critical thinking on the subject.
[Indeed, Rwandan government’s excuse for suspending to teach history and then teaching one national narrative is its fear of retriggering the conflict. As a result, it chose to evade the possibility of re-igniting ethnic distinctions at the expense of addressing the resulting structural violence. Although some Rwandans view the government approach to the issue as manipulative, some previous research on intergroup contact highlights how intergroup encounters where different identities and perspectives of the conflict are discussed enhance negative attributions and stereotyping among participants (Moaz, 2000a and 2000b).]
Is this whole section from the Moaz source? The first two sentences seem separate from the Moaz reference. Can it be clarified?
[ but neglect emotion and creativity behind]
either
neglect emotion and creativity.
or
leave emotion and creativity behind.
This is unclear: there are several BA and MA programs for Creative Writing including at Anglia Ruskin University. This sentence contradicts itself and is not accurate with its current meaning
Problem with definition: are you saying that poetry study includes creative writing or that studying drama involves creative writing?
What do you mean by active teaching strategies – define and give examples.
I disagree with this statement regarding creative writing being subsumed into language learning. If you have previously linked this to the National Curriculum, the GCSE creative writing specification for Key Stage 4 students provides assessment criteria, as well as a need for students to be taught how to write creatively in order to attain good grades. This has resulted in prescriptive structures and teachers teaching rules such as a set number of punctuation marks being used in writing or insisting on a cyclical structure being used in creative writing assessment.
Creative writing is part of the English Language GCSE with the other component being analysis of writer’s techniques for language and structure in fiction. You could go into SATS assessment in the UK as well.
This paragraph currently feels vague and reductive of the English language curriculum.
Or I have perhaps misunderstood the argument?
[ The Prelud]
The Prelude
This argument could be strengthened by an explanation after the quote. As it stands on its own it feels outdated with it’s link to the Harvard entrance exam. A sentence after the Dawson quote explaining why you have used it would justify its inclusion and relevance. As it stands I think it detracts from your argument as it isn’t clear.
Structurally, this point feels like a step backwards and would make more sense with your outline of definition of terms.
Celine,
I was referencing “bedrock” theories that other studies have been based on. I was told to place my review within a school of thought and it would necessarily be older than the literature I was reviewing.
I hope that is a valid response.
Philip
Thank you. I will review that.
In the last sentence, you write about two different results, separated by “however”. This suggests that the two results are in some way not aligned with each other. For me it is not apparent why they should not be aligned, and thus wonder whether this is a matter of word choice or whether the difference between the results is not explicit enough.
I would say that the information about the participating schools (location and cultural background of pupils) should be part of the methodology rather than introduction.
There appears to be a percentage missing in line 5: “between and 5-10%”.
I would consider to have this paragraph as the first paragraph of the introduction as it emphasises the importance of examining issues surrounding supply teachers.
I suggest that you combine this paragraph with the following one as they are both about building relationships and your personal experience. Otherwise the paragraph seems rather incomplete.
Here it sounds a little bit as though you conducted the study merely for your own benefit, that is for you to understand how you use humour. I am sure that this study can contribute in more important ways (e.g., to the literature in general and to guide supply teachers), which may be important to emphasise.
Are these your research questions? If so, they should probably go at the end of your literature review rather than here.
The literature review is usually part of the introduction, so I don’t think you need a separate header here.
When you write about a “direct correlation”, do you refer to statistical correlation? If not, I would use the term “relationship” instead because it’s a little confusing otherwise.
Maybe you can describe more detailed what you mean by a style of humour that is part of one’s ‘larger-than-life personality’ or that is ‘self-enhancing’. This is not entirely clear to me.
I understand that children most enjoy “empowerment” humour, but i wonder if this justifies the argument that teachers should use this kind of humour. My concern would be that you already discussed that a major issue is that children tend to disrespect supply teachers and to misbehave in their classes because of a lack of relationship, so that using a kind of humour that is based on ‘disobedience’ and ‘mocking’ may even add to this. I’m no expert in this area at all, but would expect that this kind of humour may only work effectively when a good and respectful relationship has already been established.
Just a general comment for the review section. It may be useful if you try to connect the different sub-sections a bit better. Now you simply separate different ideas by the headings but they seem rather unconnected. The overall flow of the paper would be better if there would be a connection between the different parts.
I would first clearly lay out the research questions without referring to the method yet. Also, above you had several questions, so is this the only one you try to answer?
Just a tiny remark but you suddenly switch from lower case sub-headings to upper-case ones.
For me it would be helpful if you would first explain what you are actually planning to do, ie. how you will collect your data, and then afterwards justify your choice. Otherwise you describe a perspective that I cannot yet link to your study.
Especially because informed consent is such an important issue, I wonder why you did not approach the children’s parents in addition to the head teacher? If you would only focus on the teachers it may be ok, but if I understood correctly, you will also note children’s reactions to humour. I would also say that teachers should have been able to give consent for themselves rather than letting the head teacher decide for them.
It is not entirely clear what these different types of humour mean. Maybe you could describe them. Did you develop these labels or do they come from the literature?
Is “Mr Werth” a pseudonym? If not, I think you should use one.
I only realise now, that this is probably you (the author), sorry about that.
You mention Table 4 in the appendices, but there appears to be no Appendix in this paper.
What do you mean by ‘mature themes’? I think this needs clarification.
Overall in this section, I miss a more detailed analysis of pupil-teacher and teacher-teacher relationships. Your main question and conclusion involves the relationship between humour and relationship building, but you never really discuss what you mean by a positive relationship.
I’m not sure that your findings justify to speak of “powerfully positive effects”. You spoke relatively little about the actual relationships between pupils and teachers but rather about pupils’ reactions to humour. Thus, I would formulate this more tentatively.
Clear outline of project, drawing reader into key areas of research. Suggestion to explain the kickstarter (one sentence) as alienating if not aware of the project content.
Is the Arts in this sense including a methodology of arts based learning or just the teaching of the Arts as a discipline? The differentiation between arts practice, arts discipline and arts based learning changes the sense of this paragraph – in the next the Ida of arts policy comes in. This umbrella “arts” could do with further unpacking.
Is there room to suggest an alternative – when mentioning the didactic, is there room to outline, for example, a dialogic space which lends itself to a redressing of power and allows for play within a creative space?
Is it worth mentioning this didactic contract in relation to Freire and the pedagogy of the oppressed?
This needs to be linked to the frustration of the AF in teachers not being willing to enact this vulnerability – very powerful
This metaphor is beautiful but could perhaps make an appearance a few more times across the text as I had forgotten it by the time I reached the conclusion. For example, could the dissolution f the power structure be likened to the laddering of a stocking, changing its materiality through material failure?
The aim was to enhance the process of data collection and to enrich the data
[The main objective of this study is based on a thesis written in fulfilment of the University of Cambridge’s MPhil Education course requirements) was to provide theoretical insight into the teaching of visual culture studies in South Africa, with a specific focus on a visual analysis lesson. ]
This sentence should probably be restructured to say ” The aim of the study is to provide theoretical insight into the teaching of visual culture studies in South Africa, with a specific focus on a visual analysis lesson (This study is based on a thesis written in fulfillment of the University of Cambridge’s MPhil Education course requirements).
[This study fers a visual analysis planning framework and lesson plan for FET art educators that will guide them in shaping students’ aesthetic literacy through the development of content knowledge, and the engagement of the imagination and feelings.]
The abstract should not have any grammatical or spelling mistakes. “This study offers”
You should include a line about your findings/conclusions/impressions of this study in the abstract
Good introduction.
[It is for this reason that art educators should be able to engage adolescent students and present new knowledge in a way that appeals to them, to interpret artworks.]
Are there any other studies that talk about the importance of familiarity and contextual relevance for students interpreting artworks depicting foreign elements? It would help bolster your own observations.
[ofctual]
of actual
The abstract is clear and well-written.
Title of the paper reflects the study.
Whether this topic has been studied previously? What is the relationship between trainee teachers’ belief and DCE in the literature review?
I’m fascinated by the phrase “families’ social problems become privatised”, as this seems to encapsulate the social impact of austerity. You may not have space to explore it further here, but it would be interesting to hear about some examples of this phenomenon.
Perhaps it’s worth pointing out for the non-specialist reader that such a high proportion of boys is not that unusual for a sample of people with autism.
In your wider project, have you observed interesting and/or significant differences in the responses from parents of boys versus parents with girls?
I referred to Blum and Johnson’s (2012) article and I did not see why the word ‘initially’ is used in your abstract.
Clearer details can be given to allow readers to follow better. Many of them probably have not read the original article. For example:
1. What the Wall Street Journal article is about
2. How data (i.e. comments) were collected
The sentence “Considering….” could be a bit hard to follow. Perhaps rewrite it?
The modifier ‘lots of’ is a bit too informal for this context.
I would recommend leaving out or condensing the last part “My stance….” to keep the abstract concise.
I agree with Celine Kamsteeg that mentioning that it is a critical review in the abstract would help orientate the readers (apart from stating it in the title of your review)
I strongly recommend
1. giving a broad summary of Blum and Johnson (2012) in this paragraph. Instead of summarising their literature review, provide a general description of the primary purpose of their article, and research methods and findings. It would be easier for readers to follow if they know first what the reviewed article is about.
2. using ’cause-effect’ markers such as ‘consequently’ judiciously. Perhaps replace it with ‘subsequently’?
“arose” – please check grammar
Writing style:
Perhaps try using non-integral citations
It is somewhat unclear where the part “Scholars….(till the end of this paragraph” comes from. It looks like a paraphrase of the citations in Blum and Johnson (2012) but it can also originate from your own reading. Which is it?
The same question for the other paragraphs with a similar pattern, for example, the next one.
What was the total number of comments collected? Perhaps tell this before going into the breakdown.
This is a clear overview. However, in what ways would you relate your review to Blum and Johnson (2012)? I am afraid that so far I cannot tell how the review is going to be ‘critical’. In other words, in what ways would you be evaluating Blum and Johnson (2012)? What theories, if any, would you be using?
I would recommend writing a short paragraph above this heading which states clearly that sections 1-3 are a paraphrase or summary of Blum and Johnson (2012). I did not realise this until I reached section 4 ‘Evaluation and discussion’
As previously, why “initially”? (line 4)
Informal language: “On the basis of that”
Very clearly-written paragraph. Coherent too!
Strong argument. Nice.
As mentioned earlier, words indicating cause-effect relationships such as “thus” in this paragraph are to be used with enormous caution.
Perhaps provide more evidence that Blum and Johnson were deliberately avoiding mentioning why “media and policymakers mainly voice the dominant groups’ actions and minds”.
A very clear abstract.
Would including only the first several lines (e.g. from “She asked me…” to “…use a stove” be sufficient in illustrating cross-cultural misunderstanding?
pity vs. empathy- an important distinction indeed.
This literature review captures comprehensively the various approaches, discourses and possible problems around nurturing empathy in children. A very engaging and convincing read indeed.
Perhaps it would also be interesting and relevant to provide brief explanations on the extent to which children’s cognitive,, social and moral development might (or might not) be in line with the teaching of empathy in school, elsewhere if not in this article.
There could also be a bit more justification for choosing to focus on building empathy by comparing peoples who are relatively significantly different and physically further apart (UK vs Africa). I am no expert on empathy development although I have been reading about it lately. I somehow wonder if it would be easier for children to “start small” with, for example, empathising with their classmates and neighbours. This could be good training for self-reflexivity?
The third sentence would benefit from a reference, as there is a claim that teachers often neglect creative writing without any supporting evidence. There is also an extra word (behind) at the end of the sentence that doesn’t make sense. In the 9th sentence, there is some ambiguity as to what is meant by ‘beauty experience’.
I’m not sure that the second sentence in needed. I think you’d be fine to go directly into the definitions. The phrasing in the 4th sentence is a little unclear, and I think specific references would be more useful than a general reference to having completed a literature review.
I’m not sure what is meant by ‘family resemblance term’. A definition would be helpful.
The first sentence here would benefit from some editing, it’s quite informal and a bit unclear.
This is a very succinct paragraph that really introduces the relevance of your topic well.
The quote from McGilligcuddy and Devine referring to ability grouping as ‘symbolic violence’ is interesting, as inclusion is an enormous goal in the system that I teach in, and has had mixed results from a variety of perspectives.
The comment I left at paragraph 4 was actually meant for here (sorry!).
A well thought out conclusion. The concerns raised are certainly valid, and mixed-grouping will likely continue to exist as a necessity regardless of the positive or negative effects. I think it’s interesting to note too, that some subject areas seem to lend themselves to mixed grouping more effectively (language arts, for example) than others (math seems to be a challenge for mixed elementary groups, in my experience).
Typo para 4 line 3 – and then come..
I like this paragraph.
Typo line 3 – and then come…
Best not to end the sentence ‘of what art is.’ in my view.
Can you comment on what you think of Bell’s view of art? Just a line? It would help to clarify as this is an unusual interpretation.
Why rely on Wittgenstein? Can you define ‘art’ and ‘game’? Why not have a go.
Check – ‘from thirteenth century’ – is this right for Aristotle and Plato?
I like this discovery of Myer’s view.
I think this paragraph needs to be shorter as it is an introduction to the broader National Curriculum but is not necessarily relevant to this research and contrasts with your earlier paragraphs analysing the difference between art and creative writing.
This comment relates to paragraph 40 not 41 sorry. I think this paragraph needs to be shorter as it is an introduction to the broader National Curriculum but is not necessarily relevant to this research and contrasts with your earlier paragraphs analysing the difference between art and creative writing.
Para 75 line two – typo – missing ‘an’ at end. Should you write ‘leads to an inconsistent…and a functional…”
Para 77 – I am not sure about the English here – “It is a long way for creative writing education to go” – should read: “creative writing has a long way to go” and also can you reword “it is worthwhile to rethink creative writing as an art form behind language learning curriculum from helping democratic….” as it doesn’t make sense.
As a linguist I am very interested in this article. I think it sounds new as have not heard about ICC. On a ‘grammar’ point basis, is the verb ‘to scope’ too informal perhaps? Also the verb ‘to foreground’? I am reading on as this is my specialist field.
Perhaps remove “to name but a few” as again, it sounds a bit informal. I would also reword line 10 starting “It should be noted…down to ‘original works'”. Use that sentence instead to summarise one of the key ideas.
I am looking for the ‘citation above’ here?
In this section, I would like to know more about what the guidelines are that Byram provides as we are moving quickly from the word ‘model’ to the word ‘guidelines’. Do you mean something different? If the model is the same as the guidelines, it needs a bit of fleshing out because I would like to know more about the researcher-practitioners’ efforts to implement them.
Paragraph 27 Line 6 – this sentence could be clearer…down to ‘nowadays’.
Also, does Byram address the hybridity of cultures or are you extrapolating this? If it is your suggestion, claim it?
For this paragraph, I left a comment in the previous. Sorry.
I meant to say that I would change the last sentence and use up the words to express an aspect of the key theory rather than saying you don’t have the space.
I would avoid the verb ‘To scope” and put ‘study abroad’ in inverted commas? Otherwise, this is a good paragraph.
I would change the words ‘engage in meaning making’ personally. Also line 6 you need to change ‘the majority of research in this line have moved… ‘ into ‘has moved’. Can you shorten your sentences a bit? The need reading through a couple of times to get the full gist. The last one here needs more clarity about how ‘telecommunication techniques’ actually impact on culture.
What do you mean my ‘overall positive remark’?
On your final point – a privileged experience for an elite group – could you include a comment about the number of non native speakers that find themselves living in other countries (EAL pupils in the UK for example). These are not part of a privileged elite but they are still moving through Byram’s process.
Line 4 – what is the ‘above mentioned strand’?
Word count – ‘worthy of highlighting’ could be replaced by ‘noteworthy’.
In this paragraph, it seems contradictory to say that there are ‘caveats …which confirm the robustness of this field’…
Line 3 “who” -> “whom” and “a permanent employed teacher” -> “permanent teachers”
Line 4 “is” -> “are”
Line 1 Verb “faces” does not agree with subject “supply teachers”.
Line 2 Gerund “resulting” should be present simple “result”.
Line 3 Phrase “the root of” and “due to” seem to overlap in meaning. One of them can be omitted.
Line 4 “Lack of relationship the supply teacher has with staff and pupils” could be rewritten as “lack of relationship between supply teachers and staff and pupils.
Line 6 Roman numbers “8” and “7” have values less than ten, thus should be expressed in words “eight” and “seven”.
Line 2: Pronoun”who” should be “whom”
Definition of “supply teacher” has already been provided in paragraph 2.
Line 1: Does “teacher” refer to “supply teacher”?
Line 8 “head” (small letter “h”)
Line 11 Could you provide more details about the survey, for example, where it was conducted? Could you provide surveys from multiple countries to support the claim that supply teachers’ ability to manage students’ behaviour is a concern of teachers and head teachers globally?
This paragraph is much longer than the next. Better divide it into two to three paragraphs.
This paragraph is much longer than the last one. Better to split it into two or three paragraphs. Line 5: Could you give some examples to explain “complex social, relational factors and hierarchies”?
Line 3: How did McGhee define “conceptual incongruity”?
Line 4: How did Pitri define “conceptual shifts”?
Line 5: Could you provide an example of “incongruous and perhaps at times empowerment baseed subversive humour” by a supply teacher, to illustrate its counter effect on children’s disobeying behaviour?
Line 1: What is EYFS? Could you elaborate more?
Line 4: Could you quote some literature about humour is related to development of young children? Line 5: What experiences are enhanced?
Could you explain why you want to address only this RQ among the three listed above?
Does this paragraph belong to the literature review rather than methodology?
I can’t see how this and the last paragraph serve as a justification of your approach.
Did the supply teachers work at the same or different nurseries / schools?
Could you justify why nurseries were chosen? Any literature to support that young kids at nurseries showed disciplinary issues during class with supply teachers?
“one to one”
Could you suggest any incident which the children learnt their misbehaviour escalated by humour from the supply teacher was not acceptable?
How do you define positive relationship? By having students and support staff considering you as friends?
This paragraph is very concise. However, I thought it might be helpful to denote why you chose to investigate the case of both student teachers and experienced teachers. Are you going to compare them, and what is the rationale for doing so?
It might be helpful to illustrate more in this paragraph. Since this research is based in Vietnam, as a reader I am very curious to know in more detail what existing studies reveal about CS in this context and the interplay between these past studies and yours
This mention of urban and rural schools is very intriguing, as I can imagine that something like CS could differ quite much between the urban and rural contexts. What is the rationale for including these two types of schools? Not sure if this comment is helpful, but would it be a good idea to also briefly touch upon the investigation of CS in rural schools as well?
Really interesting points here!
Here, the mention of student teachers being ‘unconfident’ about whether it is ‘theoretically appropriate’ to use CS is a crucial point and deserves more elaboration. What are some concrete episodes whereby students teachers experienced difficulties with CS choices? What exactly are their concerns? I believe it might be good to extract data that echo with this lack of confidence so that you could offer more concrete pedagogical suggestions towards the end of the paper.
In the literature review, you mentioned the advantages and disadvantages of CS, but here your research question 3 only touches upon teachers’ perceptions on its benefits, leaving out the disadvantages. Would it be a good idea to also inquire about teachers’ perceptions on the disadvantages of CS?